Wait a sec. Being wrong for decades gives you “enormous credibility”? So if, say, James Inhofe were to admit that he is wrong and that climate change is occurring, then he would suddenly be an important voice on what to do about it? If James Gilleran (former director of the OTS) were to write a book about the problems with lax regulation and what needs to change, would you buy it?

What about the people who were right the whole time? What “expertise” or “credibility” do they get for it? The anti-Iraq-War contingent, that ~20% of Americans who were against the war from the beginning, are still the “far left,” not to be trusted on issues of the national security by the Beltway elite. Obama still has to trot out Gates and Petraeus to defend his policy, since they were a part of the Bush team. The folks who tried to stop the reckless deregulation of financial markets are still relegated to the sidelines, while Wall Street insiders like Tim Geithner or previous deregulators like Larry Summers are running the show. Teachers’ unions, who at the time were the biggest opponents of NCLB, have found themselves as the biggest target for education reformers.

Apparently, being right after being wrong is more “credible” than being right the whole time. What is it that Thoreau said? “An efficient and valuable man does what he can, whether the community pay him for it or not. The inefficient offer their inefficiency to the highest bidder, and are forever expecting to be put in office.”